This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

first the aryan brotherhood is very closely related to neo nazis,many of nthe members are neo nazis.

second if a group claimsto be right wing,thats doesnt make them right wing,especially if they hold no conservative values,or even go by the traditional definition referring to social heirarchy.in essence the aryan brotherhood fits neither,as they tend to seek a equal society of white christians,and the eradication ofall other races.which fits neither definition unless you count hitlers ideal as traditional,in ehich it wasnt in any way shape or form,just simply fringe lunatic ideas spawned by a man who fits the description.

First, the fact that they are associated with neo nazis doesn't make them neo nazis, just as they're being associated with Mexican drug cartels does not make them Mexican

Second, the fact that you claim that they are not right wing does not make them not rightwing. And they do not need what you think are conservative values. And they do by a traditional definition to referring to a social hierarchy, nor do they call for the elimination of everyone buy white christians.

"Fred Rivara, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington, added in an email: “There is no data supporting his argument that the further arming of citizens will lessen the death toll in massacres like the one this week in Connecticut. There are in fact rigorous scientific data showing that having a gun in the home INCREASES the risk of violent death in the home.”

"Researchers at Johns Hopkins University recently conducted a review of all the existing academic literature on right-to-carry and found: “The most consistent finding across studies which correct for these flaws is that RTC laws are associated with an increase in aggravated assaults.” They estimated the increase to be about 1 to 9 percent, which may not sound like much — but with nearly 1 million aggravated assaults in the country every year, a small percentage change makes a big difference.
Researchers at Harvard have conducted numerous studies comparing data across states and countries with different gun laws and concluded, quite simply, “Where there are more guns, there is more homicide.”
Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, explained in an interview: “It’s hard to make the case, as some have done, that right-to-carry laws will lead to an enormous increase in violence. That does not appear to be the case. But it also does not appear to be the case that there is any beneficial effect.”
Colin Goddard, who became an advocate with the Brady Campaign after getting shot multiple times at the Virginia Tech shooting, put it another way: “If more guns would lead to less crime, then why is America not the safest place in the world, with 300 million guns?”

Garen Wintemute, a public health researcher at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview that this leads to faulty conclusions. “Everybody is talking about how do we stop the next Sandy Hook, but that’s the totally wrong approach, because the next one will be totally different,” he said.
"More important, while mass shootings like the one in Newtown are always the catalyst for a debate over guns, they’re a tiny fraction of the problem. There are about 20 mass shootings a year in this country, which altogether take the lives of perhaps several hundred people. But there were over 32,000 firearm-related deaths last year, the majority of which (almost 20,000) were suicides. There were also almost 850 accidental deaths from firearms. Among homicides, “far more common than mass killings are altercations where, because there is a gun available, someone ends up dead instead of a less lethal option,” Wintemute said."

Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

sorry champ... all guns are designed to kill... that''s their only purpose.
why do you possess a killing machine?... are you compensating for a small penis?

what happened to the handgun you claimed you owned?.... did you get rid of it?... or is it that you have 2 weapons of mass destruction in your household?

btw, you don't know how much pleasure it brings me to watch an anti-gun nut defend having his own firearm...it brings light into my day.

I was going to be happy with background checks, but if you want everyone to give up their guns I'll go along with it!

Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

First, the fact that they are associated with neo nazis doesn't make them neo nazis, just as they're being associated with Mexican drug cartels does not make them Mexican

Second, the fact that you claim that they are not right wing does not make them not rightwing. And they do not need what you think are conservative values. And they do by a traditional definition to referring to a social hierarchy, nor do they call for the elimination of everyone buy white christians.

actually to be right wing by any definition,they need to be either conservative or in support of an inequal society or a heirarchy,since they support niether,they are not right wing by any other definiton.i spent over twenty minutes trying to find where they are right eing,the only thing i could find were left wing blogs claiming they were right wing,but no actual evidence other than left wing nutjobs trying to pin everything bad as right wing terrorists.

“[The metric system is the tool of the Devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I likes it!” – Abe “Grampa” Simpson”

"Fred Rivara, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington, added in an email: “There is no data supporting his argument that the further arming of citizens will lessen the death toll in massacres like the one this week in Connecticut. There are in fact rigorous scientific data showing that having a gun in the home INCREASES the risk of violent death in the home.”

"Researchers at Johns Hopkins University recently conducted a review of all the existing academic literature on right-to-carry and found: “The most consistent finding across studies which correct for these flaws is that RTC laws are associated with an increase in aggravated assaults.” They estimated the increase to be about 1 to 9 percent, which may not sound like much — but with nearly 1 million aggravated assaults in the country every year, a small percentage change makes a big difference.
Researchers at Harvard have conducted numerous studies comparing data across states and countries with different gun laws and concluded, quite simply, “Where there are more guns, there is more homicide.”
Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, explained in an interview: “It’s hard to make the case, as some have done, that right-to-carry laws will lead to an enormous increase in violence. That does not appear to be the case. But it also does not appear to be the case that there is any beneficial effect.”
Colin Goddard, who became an advocate with the Brady Campaign after getting shot multiple times at the Virginia Tech shooting, put it another way: “If more guns would lead to less crime, then why is America not the safest place in the world, with 300 million guns?”

Garen Wintemute, a public health researcher at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview that this leads to faulty conclusions. “Everybody is talking about how do we stop the next Sandy Hook, but that’s the totally wrong approach, because the next one will be totally different,” he said.
"More important, while mass shootings like the one in Newtown are always the catalyst for a debate over guns, they’re a tiny fraction of the problem. There are about 20 mass shootings a year in this country, which altogether take the lives of perhaps several hundred people. But there were over 32,000 firearm-related deaths last year, the majority of which (almost 20,000) were suicides. There were also almost 850 accidental deaths from firearms. Among homicides, “far more common than mass killings are altercations where, because there is a gun available, someone ends up dead instead of a less lethal option,” Wintemute said."

This is complete and utter BS, so I'll challenge you to back up your claim about what you say "rightwing" requires

which definition would you like????websters,the free dictionary,wikipedis?????none of them support your claim at all,infact right wing didnt appear as a definition until 1856.inn all definitions it either refers to a conservative or it refers to supporting a heirarchy,except websters which says its being part of a right wing party or the right side of aflank in a military formation.

“[The metric system is the tool of the Devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that’s the way I likes it!” – Abe “Grampa” Simpson”

so you now link more people claiming such,but still cant link the studies.

are the studies so bad if people actually read them it would instantly destroy your evidence and they have no other purpose than propoganda?????

The studies are linked in the article I referenced.

Where are all the academic studies that claim more guns make us safer?

Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

which definition would you like????websters,the free dictionary,wikipedis?????none of them support your claim at all,infact right wing didnt appear as a definition until 1856.inn all definitions it either refers to a conservative or it refers to supporting a heirarchy, except websters which says its being part of a right wing party or the right side of aflank in a military formation.

White supremacists support a heirarchy where whites are at the top, so AB is rightwing according to your definition.